. . . .
. . . .
Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography
coronary angiography and evaluation of
stress-only single-photon emission computed
tomography/computed tomography hybrid
imaging: comparison of prospective
electrocardiogram-triggering vs. retrospective
gating
Lars Husmann
1, Bernhard A. Herzog
1, Oliver Gaemperli
1, Fuminari Tatsugami
1,
Nina Burkhard
1, Ines Valenta
1, Patrick Veit-Haibach
1, Christophe A. Wyss
1,
Ulf Landmesser
1, and Philipp A. Kaufmann
1,2*
1
Cardiovascular Center, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, NUK C 42, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; and2
Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Received 24 April 2008; revised 25 September 2008; accepted 6 November 2008; online publish-ahead-of-print 23 December 2008
Aims To determine diagnostic accuracy, effective radiation dose, and potential value of computed tomography coronary
angiography (CTCA) for hybrid imaging with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) comparing pro-spective electrocardiogram (ECG)-triggering vs. retropro-spective ECG-gating.
Methods and results
Two hundred patients underwent standard myocardial stress/rest- SPECT perfusion imaging, which served as stan-dard of reference. One hundred consecutive patients underwent 64-slice CTCA using prospective ECG-gating, and were compared with 100 patients who had previously undergone CTCA using retrospective ECG-gating. For predict-ing ischaemia, CTCA with prospective ECG-triggerpredict-ing and a stenosis cut-off .50% had a per-vessel sensitivity, speci-ficity, negative, and positive predictive value of 100, 84, 100, and 30%; respective values for CTCA with retrospective ECG-gating were similar (P ¼ n.s.): 86, 83, 98, and 33%. Combining CTCA with stress-only SPECT revealed 100% clinical agreement with regard to perfusion defects, and provided additional information in half the patients on pre-clinical coronary findings. Effective radiation dose was 2.2 + 0.7 mSv for CTCA with prospective ECG-triggering, and 19.7 + 4.2 mSv with retrospective ECG-gating (P , 0.001) (5.4 + 0.8 vs. 24.1 + 4.3 mSv for hybrid imaging).
Conclusion Prospective ECG-triggering for CTCA reduces radiation dose by almost 90% without affecting diagnostic perform-ance. Combined imaging with stress-only SPECT is an attractive alternative to standard stress/rest-SPECT for evalu-ation of coronary artery disease, offering additional informevalu-ation on preclinical atherosclerosis.
-Keywords Low dose CT † Prospective ECG-triggering † Retrospective ECG-gating † Computed tomography coronary angiography † Diagnostic accuracy † Hybrid imaging † Stress-only SPECT
*Corresponding author. Tel: þ41 44 255 4196, Fax: þ41 44 255 4414, Email: pak@usz.ch
Introduction
In the past years computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) had been used increasingly in the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD), as it offers high diagnostic accuracy in
steno-sis detection,1 – 4short examination time, and minimal side effects
apart from the potential harm of radiation-induced neoplasms, which has evoked a vivid controversy on the clinical benefit of CTCA. This has induced the search for strategies to minimize the radiation dose while maintaining image quality. Several techni-cal advances have allowed to decrease the dose from originally
20 – 254to 10 – 15 mSv by use of electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated
tube modulation5and even below 10 mSv by further optimizing
scanning parameters of CTCA with retrospective ECG-gating.6A
recent milestone for wide clinical acceptance of CTCA was the introduction of prospective ECG-triggering, by which scanning is limited to a narrow predefined end-diastolic phase resulting in a
massive reduction of radiation exposure to a range of 1 – 3 mSv.7
The validity of this new low-dose protocol has been confirmed
in a larger unselected patient population8 and preliminary
reports encourage the use of this protocol in latest generation
CT scanners with 320 slices.9However, at present no data exist
on the performance of CTCA with retrospective ECG-gating vs. CTCA with prospective ECG-triggering in comparison to a standard of reference for ischaemia.
As objective proof of ischaemia is the main determinant for
clini-cal decision making in chronic stable CAD,10 – 12 we have used
myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) as standard of reference. However, as CTCA visualizes coronary artery stenoses directly, and MPI identifies ischaemia, both methods may also provide
complementary information on CAD,13 and hybrid examinations
may facilitate a comprehensive interpretation of coronary lesions
and their pathophysiological relevance.13 – 16 Effective radiation
doses for hybrid imaging with SPECT MPI and CTCA using
retro-spective ECG-gating of up to 41 mSv17have been reported in the
literature, precluding its widespread clinical use, while prospective ECG-triggering may overcome this drawback. A further decrease in radiation dose of hybrid imaging could be achieved by confining the SPECT scan to stress-only, as recently suggested for low
pre-test probability populations.18
Therefore, the purpose of the present study was two-fold: First, to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CTCA with low-dose prospective ECG-triggering vs. standard retrospective gating for detecting haemodynamic relevant coronary lesions; and second, to validate a new algorithm for evaluation of unknown CAD by hybrid imaging combining CTCA with low-dose stress-only SPECT; standard stress/rest-SPECT served as the standard of reference for both aims.
Methods
Study design
Each patient underwent low-dose stress/high-dose rest-SPECT, and CTCA for clinical indication.
First step: Findings from both CTCA acquisition protocols were separately analysed and compared with SPECT results.
Second step: Two independent blinded readers analysed either the paired stress-SPECT plus CTCA (CTCA/stress-SPECT) or the stress-SPECT plus the rest-SPECT scan (stress/rest-SPECT).
Clinical study endpoints were, first, the direct comparison of total effective radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy of both CTCA proto-cols, and, second the comparison of hybrid CTCA/stress-SPECT vs. standard stress/rest-SPECT with regard to: agreement on presence or absence of ischaemic coronary heart disease, information on pre-clinical CAD, total effective radiation dose, and total examination duration.
Patient groups
One hundred consecutive patients with suspected (n ¼ 85) or known (n ¼ 15) CAD referred for MPI with SPECT and CTCA using prospec-tive ECG-triggering were prospecprospec-tively enrolled in the present study, if none of the following exclusion criteria were present: hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast agent, renal insufficiency (creatinine levels .150 mmol/L, or .1.7 mg/dL), non-sinus rhythm, or previous coron-ary bypass surgery. These patients were compared with 100 retrospec-tively enrolled patients, who had previously undergone MPI and CTCA using retrospective ECG-gating; groups were matched for the pre-sence of known CAD, heart rate, and body mass index (BMI). We decided to include 100 patients into the final analysis of this prelimi-nary report, although no formal sample size calculation was performed due to the pilot nature of this study.
The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained.
Computed tomography coronary
angiography data acquisition and
post-processing
All 200 patients received a single dose of 2.5 mg isosorbiddinitrate sublingual (Isoket, Schwarz Pharma, Monheim, Germany) 2 min prior to the scan. In addition, intravenous metoprolol (5 – 20 mg) (Beloc, AstraZeneca, London, UK) was administered prior to the CTCA examination if necessary to achieve a target heart rate ,65 b.p.m. For CTCA, 80 mL of iodixanol (Visipaque 320, 320 mg/mL, GE Heath-care, Buckinghamshire, UK) at a flow rate of 5 mL/s followed by 50 mL saline solution was injected into an antecubital vein via an 18-gauge catheter. Bolus tracking was performed with a region of interest placed into the ascending aorta.
All CTCA examinations were performed on a LightSpeed VCT XT scanner (GE Healthcare) using two different scanning protocols.
Prospective ECG-triggering: slice acquisition 64 0.625 mm, smallest X-ray window (only 75% of the R – R interval; padding set to 0 ms), z-coverage 40 mm with an increment of 35 mm, gantry rotation time 350 ms, BMI-adapted tube voltage (100 – 120 kV), and effective tube-current (450 – 700 mA).
Retrospective ECG-gating: slice acquisition 64 0.625 mm, z-coverage 40 mm, heart rate adapted pitch ranging between 0.18 and 0.26, gantry rotation time 350 ms, tube voltage 120 kV, BMI-adapted effective tube-current (280 – 750 mA), and ECG-adapted tube modulation (i.e. reduction to about 40% of nominal tube current during systole to mid-diastole). Computed tomography data sets were retrospectively reconstructed in mid- to end-diastolic phases and additional phases if needed for optimal coronary artery visualization.
Computed tomography coronary angiography image quality was assessed in all coronary segments19of all patients using a previously reported scoring system.20 If one or more segments in a patient were rated ‘non-diagnostic’, then the examination was excluded from further analysis (for retrospective ECG-gating an examination
was excluded from further analysis, if at least one coronary segment was considered ‘non-diagnostic’ in all reconstructed phases of the R – R interval).
Single-photon emission computed
tomography data acquisition
and post-processing
Single-photon emission computed tomography data acquisition was performed on a dual-head detector camera (Ventri, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA), and all patients underwent a 1-day stress (0.14 mg/kg/min adenosine i.v.)/rest MPI protocol using a dose of 300 and 900 MBq of99m
Tc-tetrofosmin, respectively. Emission data were acquired with a parallel-hole, low-energy, high-resolution colli-mator with a 20% symmetric window centred at 140 keV. Further acquisition parameters were 38 rotation per stop, 1808 each head, and 25 s per projection. Acquisitions were gated for 16 frames per R – R cycle with an acceptance window of 50%. All patients underwent low-dose, unenhanced CT for attenuation correction on a LightSpeed VCT XT scanner (GE Healthcare), as previously reported in detail.21
Diagnostic accuracy
Computed tomography coronary angiography images were evaluated and classified by two independent readers, blinded to the results of SPECT, using axial source images, multi-planar reformations, and thin-slab maximum intensity projections. Coronary arteries were visually assessed for the presence of narrowing of the coronary luminal diam-eter .50 and .75%.
Single-photon emission computed tomography data were analysed, blinded to the results of CTCA, with regard to the presence of revers-ible and/or fixed perfusion defects on short-axis, horizontal and verti-cal long-axes slices as well as on the polar maps. Left ventricular perfusion defects were attributed to three vascular territories: left anterior descending artery (LAD) included the apical, anterior, septal wall; circumflex artery (CX) included the lateral wall; right coronary artery (RCA) included the inferior wall.
Effective radiation dose
The total effective dose of CTCA was calculated as the product of the dose – length product (DLP) times a conversion coefficient for the chest (k ¼ 0.017 mSv/mGy cm).5For SPECT, the effective radiation dose was estimated as previously suggested (6.7mSv/GBq)5plus the dose for CT attenuation correction (DLP conversion coefficient for the chest).
Duration of examination protocols
The routine time schedule for the standard stress/rest-SPECT proto-col22used at our institute requires a period of 90 min between each injection of 99mTc-tetrofosmin and the following data acquisition. Computed tomography coronary angiography is routinely performed between the application of the tracer at stress and the first SPECT data acquisition. For all patients the total time for both protocols was assessed.
Statistical analysis
Quantitative variables were expressed as mean+standard deviation and categorical variables as frequencies and percentages. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated, stress/rest MPI with SPECT was con-sidered the standard of reference. Because of the interdependencies between different vessels, the statistics were also calculated on a per-patient basis (presence of at least one significant coronary artery
stenosis or absence of any significant stenosis in each patient). We took into account the clustered nature of the data (i.e. the fact that there were not 600 independent vessels but instead clusters of vessels in 200 patients). For these analyses, a proportion-procedure for survey data of the Stata software (Stata 10.0, StataCorp, College Station, TX) with the patient as primary sample unit was performed to address dependencies between the vessels.23Differences between the two matched patient populations regarding diagnostic performance were tested for significance by using x2-tests for comparison of cross tables. For further comparison, Mann – Whitney U-tests were per-formed for: total effective radiation dose, heart rate, BMI, and age. x2
-tests were used to determine differences in gender, coronary risk factors, clinical symptoms, and prevalence of known CAD. Differences between CTCA/stress-SPECT and standard stress/rest-SPECT in total radiation dose and total time between both protocols were deter-mined using a paired Student’s t-test. A P-value of ,0.05 was con-sidered to indicate statistical significance, all reported P-values were two-sided and were not adjusted for multiple testing. SPSS software (SPSS 15.0, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical testing.
Results
The present study aimed at including 100 consecutive patients scanned with prospective ECG-triggering (CAD) and a matched control group scanned with retrospective ECG-gating. After initial assessment, seven additional patients did not meet the inclusion criteria because CTCA was not feasible due to non-sinus rhythm (n ¼ 5), high heart rate despite beta-blocker administration (n ¼ 1), and elevated creatinine levels (n ¼ 1). Of these resulting 100 initially included patients, 15 patients had to be excluded because of non-diagnostic CTCA image quality in at least one cor-onary segment, due to breathing (n ¼ 5) or motion artefacts (n ¼ 10). The control group was retrospectively recruited from a large pool of patients who had undergone CTCA with retrospective ECG-gating. We identified 193 patients who had undergone SPECT in addition to CTCA, of these, 100 patients were selected who showed the best match with regard to presence of known CAD, BMI, and heart rate. Of these resulting 100 initially included patients, 13 patients were excluded because of breathing artefacts (n ¼ 6), occurrence of a premature ventricular beat during scan-ning (n ¼ 1), or coronary motion artefacts (n ¼ 6). Demographics of the final two patient populations are given in Table 1.
Diagnostic accuracy
Prospective ECG-triggering: CTCA revealed 58 coronary vessels (23%) with stenoses .50% in 29 of 85 patients (34%), and 18 vessels (7%) with stenoses .75% in 12 patients (14%). In this group, MPI with SPECT detected perfusion defects in 20 vascular territories (8%) of 18 patients (21%); while 5 of the defects were fixed (scar) 11 were reversible (ischaemia), and 2 were partly fixed and partly reversible (mixed defects).
Retrospective ECG-gating: Sixty-two coronary vessels (24%) with stenoses .50% in 38 of 87 patients (44%), and 24 vessels (9%) with stenoses .75% in 17 patients (20%) were observed on CTCA scans. Perfusion defects in 27 (10%) vascular territories of 23 patients (26%) were detected by MPI with SPECT, i.e. 8 fixed, 15 reversible, and 4 mixed defects.
The diagnostic performance of CTCA by prospective
ECG-triggering was comparable with retrospective ECG-gating
(Table 2); no statistically significant differences were detected. Regardless of the scanning technique, CTCA is more sensitive and offers a higher NPV for a stenosis cut-off .50% compared with .75%. Conversely, sensitivity and NPV decrease, while speci-ficity and the PPV increase when a cut-off .75% is chosen.
Hybrid imaging
Computed tomography coronary angiography/stress-SPECT with pro-spective ECG-triggering identified the same 18 patients to have abnormal perfusion, as the standard stress/rest-SPECT protocol, resulting in a clinical agreement of 100% (Figure 1). Computed tom-ography coronary angitom-ography provided additional information in 38/85 patients (45%), i.e. intermediate coronary lesions (n ¼ 22), non-stenosing coronary plaque (n ¼ 15), and coronary anomaly (n ¼ 1) (Figure 2).
Computed tomography coronary angiography/stress-SPECT with retrospective ECG-gating identified the same 23 patients to have abnormal perfusion, as the standard stress/rest-SPECT protocol, also resulting in a clinical agreement of 100%. Computed tomo-graphy coronary angiotomo-graphy provided additional information in 43/87 patients (49%), i.e. intermediate coronary lesions (n ¼ 20),
non-stenosing coronary plaque (n ¼ 22), and coronary anomaly (n ¼ 1).
The time schedule of the CTCA/stress-SPECT examination pro-tocol was shorter as compared with standard stress/rest SPECT (130 vs. 245 min, P , 0.001), as all CTCA examinations (either with prospective triggering or with retrospective ECG-gating) were performed in the 90 min between the first injection
of99mTc-tetrofosmin and stress data acquisition.
Total effective radiation dose
The mean total effective radiation dose of CTCA with prospective ECG-triggering was 2.2 + 0.7 mSv (range: 1.0 – 3.3 mSv), repre-senting a reduction of about 90% when compared with the 19.7 + 4.2 mSv (range: 11.5 – 33.0 mSv) obtained with retrospec-tive ECG-gating (P , 0.001).
Radiation exposure from SPECT was—by definition of the study design—comparable in both groups: i.e. 9.6 + 0.7 mSv (range: 8.2 – 12.5 mSv) in the prospectively triggered group, and 10.7 + 1.1 mSv (range: 8.5 – 14.4 mSv) in the group with retrospective ECG-gating. Combining stress-only SPECT with prospective ECG-triggering allows a significant reduction of total effective radiation dose, when compared with hybrid imaging with retrospective ECG-gating (5.4 + 0.8 vs. 24.1 + 4.3 mSv, P , 0.001).
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . Table 1 Patient demographics
Retrospective electrocardiogram-gating Prospective electrocardiogram-triggering P-value Enrolled patients 100 100
Inadequate computed tomography coronary angiography quality
13 15 0.68
Final study population 87 85
Female/male 30/57 30/55 0.91
Age (years) 63 + 11 (33 – 89) 59 + 11 (27 – 85) 0.04a BMI (kg/m2) 27 + 4 (19 – 50) 27 + 4 (18 – 39) 0.43 Heart rate (b.p.m.) 58 + 6 (45 – 73) 57 + 6 (40 – 70) 0.12 Known coronary artery disease, (%) 11 (13) 12 (14) 0.78
Previous infarction, (%) 5 (6) 3 (4) 0.49
Previous stent placement, (%) 7 (8) 6 (7) 0.32
Coronary risk factors, (%)
Smokers 24 (28) 35 (41) 0.06
Hypertension 56 (64) 50 (59) 0.46
Diabetes 11 (13) 11 (13) 0.95
Positive family history 22 (25) 29 (34) 0.21
Dyslipidaemia 41 (47) 43 (51) 0.65
Clinical symptoms, (%)
None 35 (40) 21 (25) 0.03a
Typical angina 23 (26) 16 (19) 0.23
Atypical chest pain 22 (25) 38 (45) 0.003a
Dyspnoea 11 (13) 10 (12) 0.86
a
Indicates statistical significance.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2 Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography
All patients Retrospective electrocardiogram-gating Prospective electrocardiogram-triggering
Any perfusion defect Reversible defects only Any perfusion defect Reversible defects only
>50% >75% >50% >75% >50% >75% >50% >75%
Patient-based
Sens. % (CI;n) 91 (79 – 100;21/23) 57 (36 – 77;13/23) 89 (75 – 100;17/19) 53 (29 – 76;10/19) 94 (83 – 100;17/18) 61 (38 – 84;11/18) 100 (NA;13/13) 71 (47 – 96;10/14)
Spec. % (CI;n) 73 (62 – 84;47/64) 94 (88 – 100;60/64) 73 (62 – 84;47/64) 94 (88 – 100;60/64) 76 (66 – 86;51/67) 97 (93 – 100;65/67) 76 (66 – 86;51/66) 97 (93 – 100;65/67)
NPV % (CI;n) 96 (90 – 100;47/49) 86 (77 – 94;60/70) 96 (90 – 100;47/49) 87 (79 – 95;60/69) 98 (94 – 100;51/52) 90 (83 – 97;65/72) 100 (NA;51/51) 94 (88 – 100;65/69)
PPV % (CI;n) 55 (39 – 71;21/38) 77 (56 – 97;13/17) 50 (33 – 67;17/34) 71 (47 – 96;10/14) 52 (34 – 69;17/33) 85 (64 – 100;11/13) 47 (28 – 65;13/28) 83 (61 – 100;10/12)
Vessel-based
Sens. % (CI;n) 85 (72 – 99;23/27) 59 (41 – 77;16/27) 86 (71 – 100;19/22) 59 (39 – 79;13/22) 85 (69 – 100;17/20) 65 (42 – ‘88;13/20) 100 (NA;16/16) 75 (52 – 98;12/16)
Spec. % (CI;n) 83 (77 – 90;195/234) 97 (93 – 100;226/234) 83 (77 – 90;189/227) 96 (93 – 100;219/227) 83 (76 – 89;194/235) 98 (95 – 100;230/235) 84 (77 – 90;190/227) 98 (95 – 100;223/227) NPV % (CI;n) 98 (96 – 100;195/199) 95 (93 – 98;226/237) 98 (97 – 100;189/192) 96 (94 – 99;219/228) 98 (97 – 100;194/197) 97 (95 – 99;230/237) 100 (NA;190/190) 98 (97 – 100;223/227)
PPV % (CI;n) 37 (23 – 51;23/62) 67 (43 – 90;16/24) 33 (19 – 48;19/57) 62 (36 – 88;13/21) 29 (17 – 42;17/58) 72 (43 – 100;13/18) 30 (16 – 44;16/53) 75 (43 – 100;12/16)
Unknown coronary artery disease only Patient-based
Sens. % (CI;n) 87 (69 – 100;13/15) 53 (27 – 80;8/15) 83 (61 – 100;10/12) 50 (20 – 80;6/12) 92 (75 – 100;11/12) 75 (49 – 100;9/12) 100 (NA;9/9) 80 (54 – 100;8/10)
Spec. % (CI;n) 74 (63 – 85;45/61) 95 (90 – 100;58/61) 74 (63 – 85;45/61) 95 (90 – 100;58/61) 79 (68 – 89;48/61) 97 (92 – 100;59/61) 79 (68 – 89;48/60) 97 (92 – 100;59/61)
NPV % (CI;n) 96 (90 – 100;45/47) 89 (82 – 97;58/65) 96 (90 – 100;45/47) 91 (83 – 98;58/64) 98 (94 – 100;48/49) 95 (90 – 100;59/62) 100 (NA;48/48) 97 (92 – 100; 59/61)
PPV % (CI;n) 45 (26 – 63;13/29) 73 (45 – 100;8/11) 39 (19 – 58;10/26) 67 (38 – 100;6/9) 46 (25 – 66;11/24) 82 (58 – 100;9/11) 43 (23 – 64;9/21) 80 (54 – 100;8/10)
Vessel-based
Sens. % (CI;n) 88 (70 – 100;14/16) 63 (37 – 88;10/16) 85 (64 – 100;11/13) 62 (33 – 90;8/13) 93 (79 – 100;13/14) 79 (55 – 100;11/14) 100 (NA;12/12) 83 (61 – 100;10/12)
Spec. % (CI;n) 84 (78 – 91;179/212) 97 (94 – 100;206/212) 84 (78 – 91;174/206) 97 (94 – 100;200/206) 85 (78 – 92;174/205) 98 (94 – 100;200/205) 86 (79 – 93;172/201) 98 (95 – 100;197/201) NPV % (CI;n) 99 (97 – 100;179/181) 97 (95 – 99;206/212) 99 (97 – 100;174/176) 98 (95 – 100;200/205) 99 (98 – 99;174/175) 99 (97 – 100;200/203) 100 (NA;172/172) 99 (98 – 100;197/199)
PPV % (CI;n) 30 (15 – 40;14/47) 63 (34 – 91;10/16) 26 (11 – 40;11/43) 57 (26 – 88;8/14) 30 (14 – 45;31/44) 69 (37 – 100;11/16) 29 (13 – 46;12/41) 71 (35 – 100;10/14)
CI, 95% confidence interval; n, absolute numbers; Sens., sensitivity; Spec., specificity; NA, not available; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.
L.
Husmann
et
Discussion
The main findings of the present study are two-fold: first, it documents that prospective ECG-triggering provides an excellent
diagnostic accuracy, comparable with retrospective ECG-gating, despite a decrease in radiation dose by about 90%. Second, we have validated a new low-dose hybrid SPECT/CTCA algorithm for assessment of CAD allowing reduction in protocol time as well as in radiation dose at maintained accuracy compared with stress/rest SPECT offering additional clinical information.
Conventional spiral CTCA protocols using retrospective ECG-gating have been shown to be associated with high total radiation
doses between 9.4 and 21.4 mSv.4,24With the introduction of
pro-spective ECG-gating, however, the total radiation dose of CTCA
could be reduced down to 2.1 mSv.7Only one study25has directly
compared total effective radiation doses of the two protocols in a head-to-head comparison, describing a 79% decrease from CTCA with retrospective ECG-gating (20.0 mSv) to CTCA with prospec-tive ECG-triggering (4.1 mSv), which is very similar to the results in the two matched patient populations of the present study (i.e. 2.2 and 19.7 mSv).
Our study provides evidence that accuracy of CTCA is pre-served even after introducing the prospective ECG-triggering pro-tocol. No data exists on direct comparison between the two protocols with regard to diagnostic performance, although prelimi-nary data have proved the feasibility and documented preserved
image quality with the new dose saving protocol.7,8,25,26 The
present data not only confirm the substantial reduction in effective radiation dose, but also document that the accuracy of CTCA with prospective ECG-triggering equals the accuracy of retrospectively gated CTCA. As the reduction in radiation dose is striking, the widespread use of prospective ECG-gating may now be envisaged. Our results display an excellent NPV but a modest PPV in the detection of ischaemic heart disease, especially when a cut-off for luminal narrowing is chosen at 50%. This is in line with previous
results,27 – 29and concurs with the generally accepted fact that the
strengths of CTCA lies in its excellent ability to rule out CAD. As a consequence most recommendations consider the use of CTCA
mainly in low-to-intermediate risk populations,30 in which event
rate and mortality are low and unlikely to be further lowered by any diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. Therefore the bars are very high for any diagnostic tool to keep a positive balance between harms and benefits. This is reflected by the ongoing con-troversy on the potential carcinogenic risk of the effective radiation dose and its justification for a purely diagnostic application. In this context, prospective ECG-triggering represents a milestone as it allows accurate CAD assessment with low-dose CTCA, which appears to be an ideal ‘gate-keeper’ for the assessment of
unknown CAD in selected patient populations (i.e.
low-to-intermediate pre-test probability) due to its high NPV, and may offer an alternative to SPECT. Computed tomography coronary angiography is less expensive and the examination time is shorter when compared with MPI with SPECT, although new multi-headed SPECT systems may allow considerable shortening of scan duration.
In clinical routine, standard stress/rest SPECT MPI scans are important to determine the reversibility of perfusion defects in
patients with a history of myocardial infarction.22In contrast, in a
patient population with low-to-intermediate pre-test probability and unknown CAD, the aim of any test is to reveal the presence of CAD, while potential discrimination of scar from ischaemia Figure 2 Fused stress 99mTc-tetrofosmin perfusion
single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography coronary angiography image (radiation dose from computed tom-ography coronary angitom-ography 1.3 mSv, from stress-single-photon emission computed tomography 2.2 mSv) reveals normal myocar-dial perfusion, but non-significant vessel wall irregularities in the proximal left anterior descending artery (arrows heads), as well as a coronary anomaly (arrow; origin of the right coronary artery from the left coronary sinus).
Figure 1 Fused stress 99mTc-tetrofosmin perfusion
single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography coronary angiography image (radiation dose from computed tom-ography coronary angitom-ography 2.2 mSv, from stress-single-photon emission computed tomography 2.5 mSv), showing a lateral per-fusion defect (arrows heads), served by the stented circumflex artery. Sequential intermediate lesions in the left anterior descend-ing artery (arrows) are not haemodynamically relevant (no per-fusion defect).
remains beyond the primary focus of the examination. In patients with normal myocardial perfusion at stress, however, subclinical,
yet prognostically relevant31 CAD may be present and patients
may benefit from risk factor modification or even specific
treat-ment for CAD.32 The present study demonstrates that low dose
CTCA/stress-SPECT offers such additional information on pre-clinical CAD in a large proportion of patients at no cost of
additional radiation exposure. Furthermore, hybrid cardiac
imaging offers a high confidence in image interpretation as the occurrence of equivocal findings in one modality may be
sup-plemented by the other.33This seems to be particularly important
when CTCA is acquired with the prospective ECG-gating, as the performance of this new technique may be prone to artefacts,
especially at higher heart rates.7
We acknowledge the following limitations to our study. After the matching of two patient cohorts, several patients had to be excluded from further analysis because of non-diagnostic image quality in CTCA. This however, applies to both study groups, which therefore remained well matched with regard to heart rate and BMI or presence of known CAD. Furthermore, we have included patients with known CAD, although our CTCA/ stress-SPECT algorithm appears most suitable for the assessment of patients with unknown CAD, and does not allow distinguishing reversible (ischaemia) from fixed defects (scar). Nevertheless, these patients were included for validation purposes to ascertain true positive findings and allow meaningful analysis. We did not determine whether a pathological CTCA/stress-SPECT finding should be completed by a rest-scan or directly by invasive coron-ary angiography, as this decision would probably be best driven by clinical context.
The use of prospective ECG-triggering for CTCA allows reduction of radiation dose by almost 90% without affecting diag-nostic performance. Hybrid imaging combining CTCA with stress-only SPECT is an attractive alternative to standard stress/ rest SPECT for the detection of CAD, offering additional infor-mation on pre-clinical atherosclerosis.
Funding
The study was supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF-professorship grant no. PP00A-114706) and by the ZIHP (Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich, Switzerland).
Conflict of interest: none declared.
References
1. Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F, Becker A, Nikolaou K, Paul S, Wintersperger B, Reiser M, Becker CR, Steinbeck G, Boekstegers P. Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a com-parative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultra-sound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:147 – 154.
2. Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, Goldstein JA. Diagnostic accuracy of nonin-vasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:552 – 557.
3. Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A, Vachenauer R, Desbiolles L, Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Frauenfelder T, Schertler T, Husmann L, Grunenfelder J, Genoni M, Kaufmann PA, Marincek B, Leschka S. Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: First experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2739 – 2747.
4. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CA, Runza G, McFadden EP, Baks T, Serruys PW, Krestin GP, de Feyter PJ. High-resolution spiral computed tomogra-phy coronary angiogratomogra-phy in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coron-ary angiography. Circulation 2005;112:2318 – 2323.
5. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007;116:1290 – 1305. 6. Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Schertler T, Frauenfelder T, Leschka S, Husmann L, Flohr TG, Marincek B, Kaufmann PA, Alkadhi H. Radiation dose estimates in dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Radiol 2008;18: 592 – 599.
7. Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Adda O, Treyer V, Wyss CA, Veit-Haibach P, Tatsugami F, von Schulthess GK, Kaufmann PA. Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J 2008;29:191 – 197.
8. Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, Curry CA, Lane JL, Jennings RS, McCulloch CC, Hsieh J, Londt JH. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 2008;246:742 – 753.
9. Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML, Vorobiof G, Nallamshetty L, Mitsouras D, Ersoy H, Mather RT, Judy PF, Cai T, Coyner K, Schultz K, Whitmore AG, Di Carli MF. Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;24:535 – 546.
10. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, Knudtson M, Dada M, Casperson P, Harris CL, Chaitman BR, Shaw L, Gosselin G, Nawaz S, Title LM, Gau G, Blaustein AS, Booth DC, Bates ER, Spertus JA, Berman DS, Mancini GB, Weintraub WS. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356: 1503 – 1516.
11. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, Mancini GB, Hayes SW, Hartigan PM, Weintraub WS, O’Rourke RA, Dada M, Spertus JA, Chaitman BR, Friedman J, Slomka P, Heller GV, Germano G, Gosselin G, Berger P, Kostuk WJ, Schwartz RG, Knudtson M, Veledar E, Bates ER, McCallister B, Teo KK, Boden WE. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Uti-lizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation 2008;117:1283 – 1291.
12. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, Friedman J, Diamond GA. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circula-tion 1998;97:535 – 543.
13. Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Koepfli P, Valenta I, Soyka J, Leschka S, Desbiolles L, Husmann L, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA. Accuracy of 64-slice CT angiography for the detection of functionally relevant coronary stenoses as assessed with myocar-dial perfusion SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1162 – 1171. 14. Gaemperli O, Kaufmann PA. Hybrid cardiac imaging: more than the sum of its
parts? J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:123 – 126.
15. Namdar M, Hany TF, Koepfli P, Siegrist PT, Burger C, Wyss CA, Luscher TF, von Schulthess GK, Kaufmann PA. Integrated PET/CT for the assessment of coronary artery disease: a feasibility study. J Nucl Med 2005;46:930 – 935.
16. Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Kalff V, Namdar M, Valenta I, Stefani L, Desbiolles L, Leschka S, Husmann L, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA. Validation of a new cardiac image fusion software for three-dimensional integration of myocardial perfusion SPECT and stand-alone 64-slice CT angiography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1097 – 1106.
17. Rispler S, Keidar Z, Ghersin E, Roguin A, Soil A, Dragu R, Litmanovich D, Frenkel A, Aronson D, Engel A, Beyar R, Israel O. Integrated single-photon emis-sion computed tomography and computed tomography coronary angiography for the assessment of hemodynamically significant coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1059 – 1067.
18. Gibson PB, Demus D, Noto R, Hudson W, Johnson LL. Low event rate for stress-only perfusion imaging in patients evaluated for chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:999 – 1004.
19. Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL, Gensini GG, Gott VL, Griffith LS, McGoon DC, Murphy ML, Roe BB. A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association. Circulation 1975;51:5 – 40.
20. Leschka S, Wildermuth S, Boehm T, Desbiolles L, Husmann L, Plass A, Koepfli P, Schepis T, Marincek B, Kaufmann PA, Alkadhi H. Noninvasive coronary angiogra-phy with 64-section CT: effect of average heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Radiology 2006;241:378 – 385.
21. Schepis T, Gaemperli O, Koepfli P, Ruegg C, Burger C, Leschka S, Desbiolles L, Husmann L, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA. Use of coronary calcium score scans
from stand-alone multislice computed tomography for attenuation correction of myocardial perfusion SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:11 – 19. 22. Hesse B, Tagil K, Cuocolo A, Anagnostopoulos C, Bardies M, Bax J, Bengel F,
Busemann Sokole E, Davies G, Dondi M, Edenbrandt L, Franken P, Kjaer A, Knuuti J, Lassmann M, Ljungberg M, Marcassa C, Marie PY, McKiddie F, O’Connor M, Prvulovich E, Underwood R, van Eck-Smit B. EANM/ESC pro-cedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:855 – 897.
23. Eltinge JLSW. Estimation of means, totals, ratios, and proportions for survey data. Stata Technical Bulletin 1997;6:23 – 26.
24. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, Huber E, Zankl M, Martinoff S, Kastrati A, Schomig A. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomogra-phy in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose esti-mates. Circulation 2006;113:1305 – 1310.
25. Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C, Kiguchi M, Yamamoto H, Matsuura N, Kitagawa T, Teragawa H, Kohno N, Ito K. Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 2008;248:424 – 430.
26. Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, Mitsumori LM, Lockhart DW, Dubinsky TJ, Warren BH, Caldwell JH. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 2008;248:431 – 437.
27. Hacker M, Jakobs T, Matthiesen F, Vollmar C, Nikolaou K, Becker C, Knez A, Pfluger T, Reiser M, Hahn K, Tiling R. Comparison of spiral multidetector CT angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging in the noninvasive detection of functionally relevant coronary artery lesions: first clinical experiences. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1294 – 1300.
28. Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Koepfli P, Valenta I, Soyka J, Leschka S, Desbiolles L, Husmann L, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA. Accuracy of 64-slice CT angiography for
the detection of functionally relevant coronary stenoses as assessed with myocardial perfusion SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1162 – 1171. 29. Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Valenta I, Koepfli P, Husmann L, Scheffel H, Leschka S,
Eberli FR, Luscher TF, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA. Functionally relevant coronary artery disease: comparison of 64-section CT angiography with myocardial perfusion SPECT. Radiology 2008;248:414 – 423.
30. Schroeder S, Achenbach S, Bengel F, Burgstahler C, Cademartiri F, de Feyter P, George R, Kaufmann P, Kopp AF, Knuuti J, Ropers D, Schuijf J, Tops LF, Bax JJ. Cardiac computed tomography: indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements: report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2008;29:531 – 556. 31. Gaemperli O, Valenta I, Schepis T, Husmann L, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA. Coronary 64-slice CT angiography predicts outcome in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1162 – 1173.
32. Greenland P, Bonow RO, Brundage BH, Budoff MJ, Eisenberg MJ, Grundy SM, Lauer MS, Post WS, Raggi P, Redberg RF, Rodgers GP, Shaw LJ, Taylor AJ, Weintraub WS. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coron-ary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/ AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography) developed in collaboration with the Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention and the Society of Cardio-vascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:378 – 402. 33. Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Valenta I, Husmann L, Scheffel H, Duerst V, Eberli FR,
Luscher TF, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA. Cardiac image fusion from stand-alone SPECT and CT: clinical experience. J Nucl Med 2007;48:696 – 703.
